Venue: Virtual Teams Meeting
Contact: Email: Committees@baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/SUBSTITUTIONS Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Gould, Matthew Hicks, and Tim Passmore. |
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY OR NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST BY MEMBERS Minutes: Councillor James Caston declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest in application 1856/17 as he knew the landowner as a friend and in the interests of transparency would not be take part in the consideration of the application.
Councillor Andrew Mellen declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest in application DC/18/00861 as he was a Church Warden for the diocese making who owned the land. The Planning Lawyer advised Councillor Mellen that this would not prohibit him from taking part in the decision making process.
Councillor John Field declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest in applications 1856/17 and DC/18/00861 as he was the County Councillor for the area and as a Trustee of the Felix Thornley Cobbold Agricultural Trust.
Councillor Sarah Mansel declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest as she had undertaken informal discussions regarding the sustainability of the proposed dwellings.
|
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING Minutes: Councillors Eburne, Caston, Matthissen, Warboys, Muller, Guthrie, Mellen and Mansel declared that they had been lobbied on application 1856/17
Councillors Norris and Field declared that they had been lobbied on application 1856/17 & DC/18/00861.
|
|||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL SITE VISITS Minutes: Councillor Sarah Mansel declared a personal site visit for application DC/18/00861 and the surrounding area.
Councillor John Field declared that he had visited applications 1856/17 and DC/18/00861 in his role as the County Councillor.
Councillor James Caston declared a personal site visit for application DC/18/00861.
|
|||||||||
RF/20/1 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 12 AUGUST 2020 PDF 235 KB Minutes: It was Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on the 12 August 2020 were confirmed as a true record.
|
|||||||||
RF/20/2 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 SEPTEMBER 2020 PDF 656 KB Minutes: It was Resolved that the Minutes of the meeting held on the 16 September 2020 were confirmed as a true record.
|
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: None received. |
|||||||||
RF/20/3 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS PDF 142 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:
|
|||||||||
1856/17 LAND NORTH WEST OF, CHURCH LANE, BARHAM, SUFFOLK PDF 747 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 9.1 Item 8A
Application 1856/17 Proposal Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for access and spine road) for phased development for the erection of up to 269 dwellings and affordable housing, together with associated access and spine road including works to Church lane, doctors surgery site, amenity space including an extension to the church grounds, reserved site for pre-school and primary school and all other works and infrastructure (amended description). Site Location BARHAM- Land North West of, Church Lane, Barham, Suffolk Applicant Pigeon investment management Ltd and Mr John Cutting
9.2 Prior to the commencement of the application Councillor James Caston left the meeting for application 1856/17 only.
9.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the previous resolution of the committee, the contents of the tabled papers, and the officer recommendation of approval.
9.4 It was noted during the Case Officers presentation that a two minutes silence was observed at 11:00 for Holocaust Memorial Day.
9.5 A short comfort break was taken between 11:09- 11:14.
9.6 The Case Officer and Senior Development Management officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed highways changes, any possible congestion created by the development, and the Transport assessment for the proposal.
9.7 The Development Contributions Manager responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the schooling requirement in the area and the level of growth that had been identified in the area.
9.8 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the access points for the site and the associated visibility splays, and any loss of hedgerow as a result, the storey height of any proposed dwellings, cycling provision and pathways in the area, CIL funding that would be generated from the proposal, that the meadow was not public land but that there would not be a physical boundary or fence surrounding it, and the correspondence with the Church.
9.9 Members considered the representation from Chris Pattison of Barham Parish Council.
9.10 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed meadow, whether any other sites in the parish had been considered, the number of dwellings in the parish, and the results of a household survey that had been conducted.
9.11 Members considered the representation from Jeremy Lea who spoke as an objector.
9.12 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including the response received from the Church, and proposed funds allocated in the S106 agreement.
9.13 Members considered the representation from Simon Butler-Finbow who spoke as the Agent.
9.14 The Agent responded to Members questions on issues including: the pre-school and primary school site, the market mix of proposed housing, pedestrian and cycle links to the site, the attenuation pond, the proposed meadow, and the detailed design of the buildings being submitted through reserved matters.
9.15 Members considered the written representation from Councillor Tim Passmore which was read out by the Chair.
9.16 Members considered the representation ... view the full minutes text for item 9.
|
|||||||||
DC/18/00861 LAND TO THE EAST OF, ELY ROAD, CLAYDON, SUFFOLK PDF 678 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 10.1 A lunch break was taken between 13:50- 14:20 after the completion of 1856/17 but before the commencement of DC/18/00861.
10.2 It was noted that during the break Councillor Andrew Stringer left the meeting and Councillor James Caston re-joined the Committee following the completion of application 1856/17.
10.3 Item 8B
Application DC/18/00861 Proposal Outline Planning Application (with means of access to be considered) – erection of up to 73 dwellings, public open space and supporting site infrastructure including access. Site Location Land to the East of, Ely Road, Claydon, Suffolk Applicant M.Scott Properties Ltd, The St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Diocese
10.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the history of the site, the contents of the tabled papers, and the officer recommendation of approval.
10.5 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed parameter plan and the pedestrian access to the site, the vehicular access to the site, and that strategic housing had been consulted, that the housing mix could be secured.
10.6 Councillor John Field declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest in the application under discussion as he was a Governor at Claydon Primary School.
10.7 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the surface of the slade pathway, the access on Ely road, street parking in the surrounding area, whether the height of dwellings could be restricted, the accessibility of the dwellings, landscaping on site, the impact on neighbourhood amenity for existing residents, the allocation of the site within the Draft Joint Local Plan, and that construction traffic would use Ely Road.
10.8 Members considered the representation from Richard Scott who spoke as the Applicant.
10.9 The Applicant responded to Members questions on issues including: the number of proposed bungalows on site.
10.10 Members considered the representation from the Ward Member, Councillor John Whitehead who spoke against the application.
10.11 The Ward Member responded to Members questions on issues including: the routes of vehicles from the proposed estate to the nearest shops and wider transport connections, that the village did not have a neighbourhood plan and that the walkway across the site was not a public right of way.
10.12 Members debated the application on the issues including: the number of proposed dwellings on site, the access to the site, the housing mix on the site, the proposed landscape buffer, the traffic issues that would caused by the site, and the route of construction traffic.
10.13 The Chief Planning Officer responded to a question raised earlier from Cllr Matthissen regarding M4(2) and M4(3) buildings and that the district was moving towards the Joint Local Plan which would require 50% being of that class however there was not any policy to support this but that a scheme for the provision of accessible and adaptable dwellings under M4(2) to be submitted with the reserved matters.
10.14 Members continued to debate the application on the issues including: the accessibility of ... view the full minutes text for item 10.
|